The Leadership Ethics Of Machiavelli’s Prince
The Leadership Ethics ofMachiavelli’s PrinceChristopher E. CosansChristopher S. ReinaVirginia Commonwealth UniversityABSTRACT: This article examines the place of Machiavelli’s Prince in the historyof ethics and the history of leadership philosophy. Close scrutiny indicates thatMachiavelli advances an ethical system for leadership that involves uprootingcorruption and establishing rule of law. He draws on history and current affairs inorder to obtain a realistic understanding of human behavior that forms a basis for aconsequentialist ethics. While he claims a good leader might do bad things, this isin situations where necessity constrains a prince to choosing the “least bad” courseof action. Furthermore, Machiavelli advocates winning the goodwill of followersthrough leadership as a source of power. Machiavelli’s leadership ethics has asophistication not fully enjoyed by his reputation in management scholarship.He would not score as especially “Machiavellian” on the Mach IV. Many of hisideas contain seeds for theories that are now considered important for leadershiptoday.KEY WORDS: law, leadership, lesser of two evils, Niccolò Machiavelli, power,The PrinceJust as man is the best of animals when perfected, when separated from law (νόμου) andjustice (δίκης) he is the worst beast.Aristotle, Politics1If a prince who wants always to act honorably is surrounded by many unscrupulous menhis downfall is inevitable. Therefore, a ruler who wishes to maintain his power mustlearn to be not good (non buono) when this becomes necessary (necessità). I shall setaside fantasies about princes, then, and consider what happens in fact.Machiavelli, The Prince2Of all the thinkers who have written on the complications leaders face, perhaps nonehas had more of a talent for direct and blunt talk than Niccolò Machiavelli (14691527). His words are especially pointed in his timeless classic The Prince (1532/1988;1532/2013). On the surface, this work presents itself as short handbook on leadershipaddressed to Lorenzo de’ Medici (1492-1519), who had just become the leader of theMachiavelli’s city of Florence.3 However, it is unclear if Machiavelli actually thought,in reality, Lorenzo de’ Medici could be the liberator of Italy, and did not instead 2017 Business Ethics Quarterly 28:3 (July 2018). ISSN 1052-150Xpp. 275–300DOI: 10.1017/beq.2017.13Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 209.126.2.32, on 06 Jul 2021 at 12:45:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available athttps://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2017.13
276Business Ethics Quarterlyuse the dedication to him as a literary device. Machiavelli considered monarchyto be the simplest form of government, and it could be he wrote a short handbookof how someone could be an effective prince as a more abstract study on the mostelemental and simplest problems that arise in the creation of government and theestablishment of leadership. The Prince could thus have dimensions of a thoughtexperiment on identifying the factors involved with the emergence and maintenanceof law and social order from interpersonal chaos.In spite of its directness, some of the complexity of Machiavelli’s thought on ethicswas not fully understood by many. Initially after it was published in 1532, peoplefocused on some of The Prince’s more provocative remarks without considering thebigger picture that Machiavelli presents of moral and political complexity. Machiavellidoes indeed say some shocking things. He speaks in several places of the use of cruelpunishment, for example, and in one place states that in order to annex land wherepeople speak the same language “it is enough to wipe out the family of the ruler whoheld sway over them” (1532/1988: 8). The Prince was read by most as advocatingruthless and oppressive rule, and thus dismissed by many. It was condemned bya Roman Catholic Cardinal in 1536, and all Machiavelli’s books were condemnedby the Papacy in 1559. Similarly, in popular culture Machiavelli was portrayed lessthan sympathetically by such figures as Shakespeare (Harris, 2010).The business literature has also taken a negative view of Machiavelli’s ethics asis evident by Christie and Geis’ (1970) use of statements drawn from their readingof passages of The Prince and Machiavelli’s Discourses to construct a psychological scale for an antisocial personality tendency they call “Machiavellianism.”Their interpretation of Machiavelli has largely made its way into the mainstreammanagement literature with the Mach IV scale. The scale consists of a seriesof 20 questions with which one responds on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to5 (strongly agree), and in which one of the extremes (1 or 5) is rated “highlyMachiavellian.” Three statements that illustrate their stereotypical reading ofMachiavelli are: I t is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there. The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is thatcriminals are stupid enough to get caught. One should take action only when sure it is morally right.The scale would award five points for strongly agreeing with the first two statements, and five points for strongly disagreeing with the last statement. Christie andGeis thus read Machiavelli as not having any faith in people’s goodness and believingthat he did not perceive anything inherently wrong with engaging in exploitation oroppression if one could get away with it.“Machiavellianism” is included as one of the three personality traits collectivelyreferred to as the “dark triad.” Within the management literature, scholars groupMachiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy together as the “dark triad” given allthree personality traits share the common thread of malevolence demonstrated withininterpersonal relationships (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). An individual displayingMachiavellianism generally exhibits three interrelated values that drive behavior:Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 209.126.2.32, on 06 Jul 2021 at 12:45:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available athttps://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2017.13
The Leadership Ethics of Machiavelli’s Prince2771) an openness to using manipulation to bring about desired results, 2) a distrustfulview of others, and 3) prioritizing results above morality (i.e., the ends justify themeans thinking). Meta-analytic research has demonstrated that defined this way,Machiavellianism is indeed associated with lower job performance and increaseddisplays of behaviors that are counterproductive at work (O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, &McDaniel, 2012). As such, “Machiaevellian” is far from an adjective that a modernorganizational leader would want to be called.Yet, in order to do justice to Machiavelli’s thoughts on the ethics of leadership,we will argue, his remarks must be read in light of their full philosophical and historical context. To understand the vantage point from which The Prince speaks, we mustconsider the events of Renaissance Italy in which Machiavelli lived. Machiavelli isbelieved to have begun the first drafts of The Prince around July 1513, as he was livingin retirement from politics at his farm. Just five months earlier he had been in prisonwhere he was tortured for accusations of political conspiracy (Skinner & Price, 1988:xxvi). One device used on him, the Strappado, broke both his collar bones (Harris,2010), and it is plausible he may have even had soreness as he wrote the very wordsof The Prince. He would have been vividly aware of how unethical humans can be.The Prince is thus a book dealing with the problem of evil. But unlike some of theother writings on the problem of evil (i.e., the book of Job in the Bible and Hume’sDialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 1779/1961), The Prince does not portrayevil as some uncontrollable cosmic force.4 Machiavelli portrays evil as somethingdistinctly caused by humans, and as something a leader can ameliorate if he effectivelydeals with the corruption and lawlessness of those whom he has power over.A recent wave of books and articles has argued for a rejection of the traditionalreading of The Prince as a cynical recipe book of political techniques for gainingand manipulating power, and instead calls for an interpretation of it as a book withsignificant pro-social dimensions (Benner, 2016; Fuller, 2016; Giorgini, 2008; Harris,2010; Jurdjevic, 2014; Viroli, 2014). Brenner (2016) argues that Machiavelli oftenuses irony, and that if the text is read with care, some of its shocking passages turnout not to be prescriptions for extra-moral behavior at all. In an exploration of howthe concept of tyranny appears in Machiavelli’s Prince, where Machiavelli nevermentions the word, and in The Discourses, where he does, Giorgini (2008) arguesthat throughout his work, Machiavelli places a value on liberty. Although Machiavelliat times argues it can be necessary for princes to be forceful in establishing socialorder, Giorgini holds that such exercises should be bound by law and the goals ofhelping society. According to Giorgini, Machiavelli holds that a ruler should neverslip into outright oppression and that “tyranny is always evil and life under a tyrantis accordingly pitiable” (2008: 250).McCormick has argued that Machiavelli advances republican political theory,although portraying Machiavelli in a way that is not as pro-social as somescholars (McCormick, 2015a; McCormick, 2015b). McCormick holds thatin advocating liberty, Machiavelli has an anti-elitist dimension. He claims, forexample, that a careful reading of Machiavelli’s texts indicates he had a greatadmiration for Agathocles, a Greek leader of Syracuse who killed its nobility,redistributed wealth to the people, and established a citizen’s army that includedDownloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 209.126.2.32, on 06 Jul 2021 at 12:45:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available athttps://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2017.13
278Business Ethics Quarterlyex-slaves (2015a). According to McCormick, Machiavelli would see the best princeas someone who purges a society of corruption, especially in its nobility, and whoestablishes a class of citizens “who are fully and extensively armed and who enjoyrelatively equal socio-economic status with each other” (2015b: 265).We divide the analysis that follows into two parts. In the first part, we will seekto extend the recent pro-social interpretation of Machiavelli by arguing that ThePrince can be seen as an effort to advance a leadership ethics that is applicable tobusiness today. When read carefully, we argue that many of the measures that havegiven Machiavelli a reputation for being extreme and oppressive turn out to haveimportant limits. In the second part, we will explore legacy of Machiavelli’s thoughtfor management scholars today. We will consider in detail how “Machiavellian”Machiavelli would have been according to the Mach IV scale, and how some of hisideas have much application for modern leadership theory.I. UNDERSTANDING MACHIAVELLI’S MORAL AGENDAAlthough in places Machiavelli argues it is ethical for a prince to use what we todaywould consider brutal means, it is important to understand he was writing at a timein the history of ideas before general concepts of “international law” and universalhuman rights had become as developed as they now are. Writing in a less settled time,Machiavelli nonetheless expresses constant concern that a prince should seek touproot corruption and create a general dynamic that is socially progressive.Using Historical Studies to Ground Ethics in ConsequencesThe approach that Machiavelli takes in The Prince draws on methods of history andpractical philosophy, and allows him to offer ethical insight into how a prince canavoid the temptation to rule lawlessly. In the dedicatory letter, Machiavelli states hehad gained some of his knowledge through the “continual study of ancient history”(1532/1988: 3). In discussing military preparation within the body of The Prince,he advises historical study for leaders as well:As for mental exercise, a prince should read histories, especially for the light they shed on theactions of excellent (eccellenti) men: to see how they waged war, to discover the reasons fortheir victories and defeats, in order to avoid reverses and achieve conquests (1532/1988: 53).5In this we see elements of consequentialist ethics. A prince should aim to beexcellent by analyzing the actions of the great men of the past, with attention towhat actions produced good results, and thus calculate consequences. He especiallyfocuses on what emotions people will feel as the consequence of someone’s actions,and how these emotions will drive their behavior. In what is taken as an effort tocontrast himself with Plato, Machiavelli claims that:Because I want to write what will be useful (utile) to anyone who understands, it seemsto me better to concentrate on what really happens rather than on theories or speculations.For many have imagined republics and principalities that have never been seen or known toexist (1532/1988: 54).Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 209.126.2.32, on 06 Jul 2021 at 12:45:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available athttps://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2017.13
The Leadership Ethics of Machiavelli’s Prince279Because he had access to numerous published historical studies, including thoseof Livy, Plutarch, and Thucydides, as well as editions of the writings of the greatthinkers from the past such as Cicero, Plato, and Aristotle, Machiavelli had in hislibrary a ready wealth of knowledge about the past, and knowledge about howdifferent kinds of situations previously occurred and developed. This made itpractical for Machiavelli to offer a political ethics based on consequences in a waythat would not have been as easy before the rise of mass produced books in thefifteenth century made it possible for one person to read multiple books by differentauthors. The historical works available in 1513 allowed someone wrestling withdecision making to learn what consequences had followed from similar decisions inthe past. Building on all that he could learn from past books enabled Machiavelli toadvance a general political realism on the types of actions that would have allowedsomeone to become an effective prince.Machiavelli discusses the role of his study of ancient books in his development ofthe ethics he articulates in The Prince in a letter that he sent to his friend FrancescoVettori:When evening comes, I return home and enter my study; on the threshold I take off myworkday clothes, covered with mud and dirt, and put on the garments of court and palace.Fitted out appropriately, I step inside the venerable courts of the ancients, where, solicitously received by them, I nourish myself on that food that alone is mine and for whichI was born; where I am unashamed to converse with them and to question them about themotives for their actions, and they, out of their human kindness, answer me. And for fourhours at a time I feel no boredom. . . And because Dante says that no one understandsanything unless he retains what he has understood, I have jotted down what I have profitedfrom in their conversation and composed a short study, De principatibus (On Principalities),6 in which I delve as deeply as I can into the ideas concerning this topic, discussingthe definition of a princedom, the categories of princedoms, how they are acquired, howthey are retained, and why they are lost (Machiavelli, 1513/1996: 262-65).Even if he had wanted to take such a realistic, case-study-based approach to ethics,Plato would have had difficulty doing so. Working around 390 BC the main histories hewould have had were Thucydides and Herodotus, and both only in the forms of rolledup scrolls that did not even have spaces between letters, and would require a trainedservant to read out loud. While Thucydides and Herodotus had begun to record andanalyze human events with the methods we now associate with empirical historicalstudies, these two works do not provide a volume of historical situations approachingthe number that could be read about by an ethicist working in Renaissance Italy.Machiavelli extends his advice to ground decisions in realism to the case of advisers.He recommends a prince should have a few advisers who can share with him whateverthey think and to whom he makes clear “being told the truth does not offend you”(1532/1988: 81). This is now considered a best practice in organizations, where surrounding oneself with trusted advisers who will tell you the truth or appointing a “devil’sadvocate” to push back on ideas, are seen as vital components for effective decisionmaking (Schwenk & Cosier, 1980). It is an important force to reduce the possibility ofgroupthink from occurring (Janis, 1971; see Esser, 1998, for a comprehensive review).Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 209.126.2.32, on 06 Jul 2021 at 12:45:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available athttps://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2017.13
280Business Ethics QuarterlyManaging Power in Leading the StateThe Prince presents its ethical framework as a handbook on how a new leader couldmanage power so as to achieve greatness. He opens by saying all states are eitherrepublics or principalities, and that The Prince will focus on principalities. In hisbroader work on republics, The Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli identifies principality as one of three good forms of government (the other two being aristocracy anddemocracy). He cautions in Discourses that because it is “so easily corruptible. . . theprincipality easily becomes tyrannical” (1531/1997: 23-24). In presenting directionson how someone could be a good prince, he provides a manual on not just how tostrive for excellence, but also on what a prince must know and do in order to avoidbeing corrupted into the temptations of becoming a self-serving autocrat.In order to govern a city, a prince must acquire and maintain power. The Princemakes reference to two sources of power that someone can have: an ability to coercepeople with force, and an ability to rely upon the good will of the city’s people.These two ways to acquire power mirror French and Raven’s (1959) discussion oftwo distinct bases by which leaders can gain power—coercive power derived fromthe ability to punish others if they do not conform to requests, and referent power,which is derived from others wanting to emulate and be like the leader. Machiavelliis most famous for his claims about the way at times force can be the basis of power(i.e., via coercion), and his remarks on this are quite direct. For example, in discussing Hannibal (247 – 183/181 BCE), Machiavelli claims:Although he had a very large army, composed of men from many countries, and fightingin foreign lands, there never arose any dissension, either among themselves or againsttheir leader, whether things were going well or badly. This could be accounted for onlyin his inhuman cruelty (inumana crudeltà ) which, together with his many good qualities,made him always venerable (venerando) and terrible (terribile) in the eyes of his troops.And if he had not been so cruel, his other virtues (virtù) would not have been sufficientto achieve that effect (1532/1988: 60).Just as he was aware of torture from personal experience, Machiavelli was awareof and incorporates into his ethics the human capacity for corruption, violence, andwaging war. In order to establish a new political order, he saw arms as necessary.In chapter 19, for instance, he argues that a prince should not follow the example ofthe benevolent emperor Marcus in “maintaining power that is already established andsecure,” but the example of the more brutal emperor Severus “in the courses of actionthat are necessary for establishing himself in power” (1532/1988: 72). In chapter 6,Machiavelli includes Moses as a leader who used arms, presumably referring to stoningand the death of the first born (Exodus 12: 29-34) when he claims,If Moses, Cyrus, Theseus and Romulus had been unarmed (diarmati), the new orderwhich each of them established would not have been obeyed for very long, as happenedin our times to Friar Girolamo Savonarola (1532/1988: 21).The mention of Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, and Savonarola is especially poignant.Sanonarola was the leader of the uprising that expelled the de’ Medici family fromDownloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 209.126.2.32, on 06 Jul 2021 at 12:45:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available athttps://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2017.13
The Leadership Ethics of Machiavelli’s Prince281Florence in 1494, but which failed to establish long term stability. In the concludingchapter of The Prince, Machiavelli says the Italians are oppressed, and someone couldbecome the leader who would liberate them as the Hebrews, Persians, and Athenianswere by Moses, Cyrus, and Theseus. It calls for the expulsion of foreign troops from Italy.A second source of power that appears in The Prince, and is often overlookedwhen discussing Machiavellian leadership, is the goodwill that the people candevelop towards a prince and his family if he governs them well over time. Therelationship a good prince and ruling family can acquire with their people allowspower to emanate from the bottom up. The level of power Machiavelli sees thepeople’s goodwill giving a prince is especially evident in his discussion of how toavoid being overthrown in a conspiracy. In offering a calculus of the power dynamicsinvolved in any potential conspiracy he claims:In short, for conspirators there are only fears of discovery or betrayal, and the dreadfulprospect of punishment; but the ruler has the prestige attaching to his office, together withthe laws and resources of government at his disposal, as well as help from allies, all ofwhich will help him to survive; to which if the general goodwill of the people be added,it is impossible (impossibile) that any would be rash enough to conspire (1532/1988: 65).The simple consequences of how people feel and behave, make it in a prince’sinterest to conduct himself so as to earn the people’s goodwill. In keeping withhis efforts to ground his thought in the facts of history, Machiavelli provides theexample of what ensued in a conspiracy in Bologna. When the Canneschi familykilled Annibale Bentivoglio, who had been Bologna’s leader, “immediately upon themurder, the people rose up and killed all the Canneschi” (1532/1988: 65). The peoplethen found a distant relative of Bentivoglio, who could reign until his then infant sonwas old enough to assume leadership.As effective, and even necessary, as force might be in the initial establishmentof power, Machiavelli suggests the goodwill of the people is the firmer source forlong-term power, which reinforces the importance of seeking soft bases of powerrather than hard bases of power (French & Raven, 1959). He claims the goodwilla prince can earn by displaying the virtues of courage, optimism, spiritedness, andcompetence is especially advantageous:But if it is a prince who builds his power upon the people, and if he knows how tocommand and if he is courageous, does not despair in difficult times, and maintains themorale of his people by his spiritedness and the measures that he takes, he will neverfind himself let down by them, and he will realize he had laid sound foundations of hispower (1532/1988: 36-37).We see here Machiavelli planting the seeds in Renaissance thought for manyimportant leadership theories and behaviors that have emerged, such as transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Burns, 1978) and charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanugo, 1997; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Bothreinforce the importance of inspiring followers and demonstrating courage duringdifficult times, and are built off of the cultivation of power through gaining therespect and good will of the people.Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 209.126.2.32, on 06 Jul 2021 at 12:45:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available athttps://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2017.13
282Business Ethics QuarterlyOf all the things that Machiavelli recommends in The Prince, none has moreconsequences for the distribution of raw power in a good principality than hisadvice that any prince should arm his people. On this point Machiavelli is directand unambiguous:New princes, then never disarm their subjects; indeed, if they find them unarmed, theyalways provide them with weapons. For when you arm them, these weapons becomeyour own: those whom you distrusted become loyal, those who were loyal remain so,and subjects are converted into partisans (partigiani) . . . But if you disarm your subjects,you begin to offend them, for you show that you do not trust them, either because youare weak and cowardly or because you are too suspicious (1532/1988: 72).Giving subjects arms directly empowers them and makes them vital parts of hispolitical system by giving them a role in any force that would be applied in itsestablishment and maintenance. This parallels modern approaches to leadership andmanagement that suggest that empowering employees is a way to be an effectiveleader by ensuring employees have the resources they need to do their jobs, andhelping employees understand how they play a role in the larger picture (Spreitzer,1996). Arming citizens, as Machiavelli advocates, demonstrates that he is a proponentof giving citizens the resources they need to defend the laws, and ensuring theirbuy-in toward achieving the military goal of maintaining social order and defendingthe city. Indeed, we see here the incipient roots emerging of shared leadershipin which power and influence are less distributed hierarchically but rather laterallybetween individuals (Pearce & Conger, 2003; Pearce & Sims, 2002).Insofar as Machiavelli refers to force as one source of power, a prince giving thepeople arms imparts to his principality an element of the power relations presentin a democracy. As an explanation for the logical importance of a discussion of themilitary in The Prince he notes:The main foundations of all states (whether they are new, old or mixed) are goodlaws and good arms (buone leggi e le buone armi). Since it is impossible (nonpossono) to have good laws if good arms are lacking, and if there are good armsthere must also be good laws, I shall leave laws aside and concentrate on arms(1532/1988: 42-43).In discussing arms, Machiavelli claims the lessons of history indicate that the bestform is a “national army” of citizens who fight in battle but who are neithermercenaries, nor troops of an allied state, nor a standing army like that possessedby ancient Rome.7 He catalogs how mercenaries had failed other Italian leaders inbattle and explains this in terms of simple economics: “They have no affection foryou or any other reason to induce them to fight for you, except a trifling wage, whichis not sufficient to make them want to risk their lives for you” (1532/1988: 43).8However, by empowering citizens through giving them arms, Machiavelli ensuresthat citizens are loyal and united toward achieving the larger goal of living in a freecity with a good social order. Further, arming citizens can be linked to the path-goaltheory of leadership which suggests that leaders can motivate followers to achievegoals by either removing obstacles to goal achievement or by increasing the rewardsDownloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 209.126.2.32, on 06 Jul 2021 at 12:45:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available athttps://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2017.13
The Leadership Ethics of Machiavelli’s Prince283that followers value and desire (Bass, 1985; House, 1971). By invoking the passionand strength of a national army to defend and protect their laws and state, we suggestthat Machiavelli effectively motivates followers in order to bring about the futurethat the followers value and desire. In sharing martial power, giving arms to citizens,rebuking the use of mercenaries, and rallying citizens around the goal of keepingtheir state free, a prince effectively acts as a transformational leader by ensuringthat the citizens buy into a common vision for the future and empowers them withthe tools to achieve this larger organizational goal (Bass, 1985).The consideration of arms goes to advice to the prince himself. To get the peopleto fight for him in war, a prince has to develop a relationship during times of peacewhere they care enough about him that they will make sacrifices. Machiavelli heldthat such an attitude would naturally develop over time if a prince governed reasonably well, but he also thought a prince can take actions that will facilitate thegrowth of such feelings. He needs to go out on hunts so he learns the land and canlead the citizen army on the battle field:With regard to exercises, besides keeping his troops well disciplined and trained, heshould very frequently engage in hunting, thus hardening his body and, at the sametime, become familiar with the terrain: how mountains rise, how valleys open out andplains spread out, as well as with the characteristics of rivers and swamps; he shouldconcern himself very much with all these matters. This knowledge (cognizione) isuseful in two ways. First, one learns well the terrain of one’s own country, and understands better its natural defenses; secondly, through knowing and exercising in thecountry side, one easily grasps the characteristics of any new terrain that must beexplored (1532/1988: 52-53).Hunting trips in his state’s countryside for
Machiavelli’s Prince Christopher E. Cosans Christopher S. Reina Virginia Commonwealth University ABSTRACT: This article examines the place of Machiavelli’s Prince in the history . He speaks in several places of the use of
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
4 Niccolò Machiavelli to Francesco Guicciardini, May 17, 1521, in Niccolò Machiavelli, , vol. 2, p. 372; Eng. trans., Opere Machiavelli and His Friends, p. 336. Machiavelli stresses his love of the fatherland also in the opening of his A Dialogue on Language (Discorso o dialogo intorno
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
3 function as Machiavelli’s central military treatises, analyzing military strategy, tactics, and theory in Machiavelli’s time as well as for other important military traditions.9 Frederick found himself in a position far different from Machiavelli’s trials and
